Paper summarynipsreviewsThis paper addresses the task of image-based Q&A on 2 axes: comparison of different models on 2 datasets and creation of a new dataset based on existing captions.
The paper is addressing an important and interesting new topic which has seen recent surge of interest (Malinowski2014, Malinowski2015, Antol2015, Gao2015, etc.). The paper is technically sound, well-written, and well-organized. They achieve good results on both datasets and the baselines are useful to understand important ablations. The new dataset is also much larger than previous work, allowing training of stronger models, esp. deep NN ones.
However, there are several weaknesses: their main model is not very different from existing work on image-Q&A (Malinowski2015, who also had a VIS+LSTM style model (but they were also jointly training the CNN and RNN, and also decoding with RNNs to produce longer answers) and achieves similar performance (except that adding bidirectionality and 2-way image input helps). Also, as the authors themselves discuss, the dataset in its current form, synthetically created from captions, is a good start but is quite conservative and limited, being single-word answers, and the transformation rules only designed for certain simple syntactic cases.
It is exploration work and will benefit a lot from a bit more progress in terms of new models and a slightly more broad dataset (at least with answers up to 2-3 words).
Regarding new models, e.g., attention-based models are very relevant and intuitive here (and the paper would be much more complete with this), since these models should learn to focus on the right area of the image to answer the given question and it would be very interesting to analyze the results of whether this focusing happens correctly.
Before attention models, since 2-way image input helped (actually, it would be good to ablate 2-way versus bidirectionality in the 2-VIS+BLSTM model), it would be good to also show the model version that feeds the image vector at every time step of the question.
Also, it would be useful to have a nearest neighbor baseline as in Devlin et al., 2015, given their discussion of COCO's properties. Here too, one could imagine copying answers of training questions, for cases where the captions are very similar.
Regarding a broader-scope dataset, the issue with the current approach is that it is too similar to the captioning approach or task, which has the drawback that a major motivation to move to image-Q&A is to move away from single, vague (non-specific), generic, one-event-focused captions to a more complex and detailed understanding of and reasoning over the image; which doesn't happen with this paper's current dataset creation approach, and so this will also not encourage thinking of very different models to handle image-Q&A, since the best captioning models will continue to work well here. Also, having 2-3 word answers will capture more realistic and more diverse scenarios; and though it is true that evaluation is harder, one can start with existing metrics like BLEU, METEOR, CIDEr, and human eval. And since these will not be full sentences but just 2-3 word phrases, such existing metrics will be much more robust and stable already.
Originality:
The task of image-Q&A is very recent with only a couple of prior and concurrent work, and the dataset creation procedure, despite its limitations (discussed above) is novel. The models are mostly not novel, being very similar to Malinowski2015, but the authors add bidirectionality and 2-way image input (but then Malinowski2015 was jointly training the CNN and RNN, and also decoding with RNNs to produce longer answers).
Significance:
As discussed above, the paper show useful results and ablations on the important, recent task of image-Q&A, based on 2 datasets -- an existing small dataset and a new large dataset; however, the second, new dataset is synthetically created by rule-transforming captions and only to single-word answers, thus keeping the impact of the dataset limited, because it keeps the task too similar to the generic captioning task and because there is no generation of answers or prediction of multi-word answers.

This paper addresses the task of image-based Q&A on 2 axes: comparison of different models on 2 datasets and creation of a new dataset based on existing captions.
The paper is addressing an important and interesting new topic which has seen recent surge of interest (Malinowski2014, Malinowski2015, Antol2015, Gao2015, etc.). The paper is technically sound, well-written, and well-organized. They achieve good results on both datasets and the baselines are useful to understand important ablations. The new dataset is also much larger than previous work, allowing training of stronger models, esp. deep NN ones.
However, there are several weaknesses: their main model is not very different from existing work on image-Q&A (Malinowski2015, who also had a VIS+LSTM style model (but they were also jointly training the CNN and RNN, and also decoding with RNNs to produce longer answers) and achieves similar performance (except that adding bidirectionality and 2-way image input helps). Also, as the authors themselves discuss, the dataset in its current form, synthetically created from captions, is a good start but is quite conservative and limited, being single-word answers, and the transformation rules only designed for certain simple syntactic cases.
It is exploration work and will benefit a lot from a bit more progress in terms of new models and a slightly more broad dataset (at least with answers up to 2-3 words).
Regarding new models, e.g., attention-based models are very relevant and intuitive here (and the paper would be much more complete with this), since these models should learn to focus on the right area of the image to answer the given question and it would be very interesting to analyze the results of whether this focusing happens correctly.
Before attention models, since 2-way image input helped (actually, it would be good to ablate 2-way versus bidirectionality in the 2-VIS+BLSTM model), it would be good to also show the model version that feeds the image vector at every time step of the question.
Also, it would be useful to have a nearest neighbor baseline as in Devlin et al., 2015, given their discussion of COCO's properties. Here too, one could imagine copying answers of training questions, for cases where the captions are very similar.
Regarding a broader-scope dataset, the issue with the current approach is that it is too similar to the captioning approach or task, which has the drawback that a major motivation to move to image-Q&A is to move away from single, vague (non-specific), generic, one-event-focused captions to a more complex and detailed understanding of and reasoning over the image; which doesn't happen with this paper's current dataset creation approach, and so this will also not encourage thinking of very different models to handle image-Q&A, since the best captioning models will continue to work well here. Also, having 2-3 word answers will capture more realistic and more diverse scenarios; and though it is true that evaluation is harder, one can start with existing metrics like BLEU, METEOR, CIDEr, and human eval. And since these will not be full sentences but just 2-3 word phrases, such existing metrics will be much more robust and stable already.
Originality:
The task of image-Q&A is very recent with only a couple of prior and concurrent work, and the dataset creation procedure, despite its limitations (discussed above) is novel. The models are mostly not novel, being very similar to Malinowski2015, but the authors add bidirectionality and 2-way image input (but then Malinowski2015 was jointly training the CNN and RNN, and also decoding with RNNs to produce longer answers).
Significance:
As discussed above, the paper show useful results and ablations on the important, recent task of image-Q&A, based on 2 datasets -- an existing small dataset and a new large dataset; however, the second, new dataset is synthetically created by rule-transforming captions and only to single-word answers, thus keeping the impact of the dataset limited, because it keeps the task too similar to the generic captioning task and because there is no generation of answers or prediction of multi-word answers.